plz tell me what intel processor is better than

[Pelu]

Anyone know any comparison between intel processors that are better than phenoms?

 

[PolymerTim]

Here is one good place to start. I don't always find Tom's to be the most accurate benchmarks, but they have more complete coverage than most other sites so it can give you an idea of what products to look into more.

http://www.tomshardware.com/ch...-studio-max-9,369.html

Make sure to scroll to the bottom and select "view all products" to show all the processors. Then seelct your preferred benchmark from the dropdown list and compare. Have fun!

 

[OCGuy]

Originally posted by: Pelu
Anyone know any comparison between intel processors that are better than phenoms?

Is that a serious question? (At least for now)

 

[VulcanX]

Intel slaughters them, simple as that, even the Core 2 Duos kill the Phenoms, so just stick to Intel, i make a shit choice converting to AMD, i am an Intel fan through and through, and the scores + performance kills the AMD counterparts, but keep in mind the price difference, AMD is like half the price, so find a balance, but still stick to Intel in my opinion

 

[demiurge3141]

q6600 beats AMD's entire lineup

 

[OCGuy]

[but keep in mind the price difference, AMD is like half the price

Half the price of what? I can drive down the street and get a brand new Q6600 for $199...

 

[error8]

Like demiurge said, Q6600 beats the entire quad line up AMD has, even the 9850 BE.

 

[Scotteq]

A year old Q6600 or better beats anything AMD have except in memory bandwidth.

Regarding the price differential: Newegg has a Q66 for $216. At the same store, a 9750 shows at $215, and a 9850 BE is $215.

 

[PascalT]

Ppl still buy AMD Cpus?

 

[Markfw]

Originally posted by: Scotteq
A year old Q6600 or better beats anything AMD have except in memory bandwidth.

Regarding the price differential: Newegg has a Q66 for $216. At the same store, a 9750 shows at $215, and a 9850 BE is $215.

QFT

Sorry to say, AMD has nothing to offer these days. Except possibly at the very bottom end, even then an E2140,60,80, etc... are right there.

 

[Cogman]

Its pretty easy to find the Intel CPU that is better then amds Phenom. Just look at Phenoms price, and now look at Intels price. Every thing that is about $50 less and up of phenoms prices will run better then it. Everything based on Core 2 chips will overclock to run faster then it.

 

[Mloot]

I'm quite happy with the Ph9500 that I bought off of CL for $90 a month or so ago.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: Markfw900

Originally posted by: Scotteq
A year old Q6600 or better beats anything AMD have except in memory bandwidth.

Regarding the price differential: Newegg has a Q66 for $216. At the same store, a 9750 shows at $215, and a 9850 BE is $215.

QFT

Sorry to say, AMD has nothing to offer these days. Except possibly at the very bottom end, even then an E2140,60,80, etc... are right there.

Low power low heat low noise HTPC is very tempting mark :T

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: PascalT
Ppl still buy AMD Cpus?

Probably the same people who buy 8600GT's.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Originally posted by: VulcanX
Intel slaughters them, simple as that, even the Core 2 Duos kill the Phenoms, so just stick to Intel, i make a shit choice converting to AMD, i am an Intel fan through and through, and the scores + performance kills the AMD counterparts, but keep in mind the price difference, AMD is like half the price, so find a balance, but still stick to Intel in my opinion

You are the new Nemesis1. What is so terrible about your system? Does it not do the things you want to do or do you just not like it because you see benchmarks posted on websites that show the C2D is faster?

OP, if your primary concern is a gaming machine you could probably pick up a 5000+ BE pretty cheap and overclock that and have a better gaming experience then with your current Phenom. If you are doing other extensive CPU work and your Phenom isn't cutting it, that's another story... then a system overhaul with a quicker Intel quad may very well make sense. But seeing how you have 2 3870's I'm assuming you are a gamer. I guess it just depends on how much you want to spend and how much work you want to put in to your system. Just my $.02

 

[VulcanX]

Ok well spyder, firstly, my system doesnt run half as well as C2Ds that i know of, the one dude is running an E6450 or summin, and it is better and faster in CoD4 even tho my rig has corsair and better mobo etc, so its kinda heartache man! it just makes me sad at how weak my CPU actually is, it was one of the first gen x2 anyway, but still has 2 mb cache etc, but still doesnt perform like how a 2.6 should, but thats why i wanted to overclock it, but rather dont and sell it later to chip towards my new system, but im not buying anythin yet as i spend bout $140 i think, on my mobo, so gonna hang onto it till i cant play games anymore, then do a massive upgrade man

 

[SlowSpyder]

Originally posted by: VulcanX
Ok well spyder, firstly, my system doesnt run half as well as C2Ds that i know of, the one dude is running an E6450 or summin, and it is better and faster in CoD4 even tho my rig has corsair and better mobo etc, so its kinda heartache man! it just makes me sad at how weak my CPU actually is, it was one of the first gen x2 anyway, but still has 2 mb cache etc, but still doesnt perform like how a 2.6 should, but thats why i wanted to overclock it, but rather dont and sell it later to chip towards my new system, but im not buying anythin yet as i spend bout $140 i think, on my mobo, so gonna hang onto it till i cant play games anymore, then do a massive upgrade man

Chances are your 8600GTS is the weak link in your system, not your processor. If you buy a C2D and overclock it to the sky and keep the 8600GTS and use the system as a gaming rig I have a feeling you'll still be pretty disappointed. Save your money and buy a better video card first, see how the system runs with what you have and a better video card. If you are still not happy with the system, then I'd do a system overhaul. But, I can almost gaurantee that more then anything your 8600GTS is holding you back more then anything. I don't see a monitor in your sig, so I don't know what resolution you game at, but I would imagine on newer games the 8600GTS will struggle on 22" monitors or above if you run native resolution... especialy if you like to use anti aliasing.

 

[bryanW1995]

Originally posted by: VulcanX
Ok well spyder, firstly, my system doesnt run half as well as C2Ds that i know of, the one dude is running an E6450 or summin, and it is better and faster in CoD4 even tho my rig has corsair and better mobo etc, so its kinda heartache man! it just makes me sad at how weak my CPU actually is, it was one of the first gen x2 anyway, but still has 2 mb cache etc, but still doesnt perform like how a 2.6 should, but thats why i wanted to overclock it, but rather dont and sell it later to chip towards my new system, but im not buying anythin yet as i spend bout $140 i think, on my mobo, so gonna hang onto it till i cant play games anymore, then do a massive upgrade man

if you have corsair and his rig is still better than yours then you probably need to rma it. are you still in the warranty period?

 

[error8]

Originally posted by: SlowSpyder

Originally posted by: VulcanX
Ok well spyder, firstly, my system doesnt run half as well as C2Ds that i know of, the one dude is running an E6450 or summin, and it is better and faster in CoD4 even tho my rig has corsair and better mobo etc, so its kinda heartache man! it just makes me sad at how weak my CPU actually is, it was one of the first gen x2 anyway, but still has 2 mb cache etc, but still doesnt perform like how a 2.6 should, but thats why i wanted to overclock it, but rather dont and sell it later to chip towards my new system, but im not buying anythin yet as i spend bout $140 i think, on my mobo, so gonna hang onto it till i cant play games anymore, then do a massive upgrade man

Chances are your 8600GTS is the weak link in your system, not your processor. If you buy a C2D and overclock it to the sky and keep the 8600GTS and use the system as a gaming rig I have a feeling you'll still be pretty disappointed. Save your money and buy a better video card first, see how the system runs with what you have and a better video card. If you are still not happy with the system, then I'd do a system overhaul. But, I can almost gaurantee that more then anything your 8600GTS is holding you back more then anything. I don't see a monitor in your sig, so I don't know what resolution you game at, but I would imagine on newer games the 8600GTS will struggle on 22" monitors or above if you run native resolution... especialy if you like to use anti aliasing.

Yup, the 8600 gts is pretty bad for gaming. A very fast Intel dual core/quad core won't boost your frame rates too much or maybe not at all, if your gaming at more then 1600X1200. You'll probably feel some difference at 1024X768 to 1280X1024, but not a big one.
Upgrade the graphics card like SlowSpyder said and then think about another cpu, if you'll still feel the need for one.

 

[Flipped Gazelle]

Originally posted by: bryanW1995

Originally posted by: VulcanX
Ok well spyder, firstly, my system doesnt run half as well as C2Ds that i know of, the one dude is running an E6450 or summin, and it is better and faster in CoD4 even tho my rig has corsair and better mobo etc, so its kinda heartache man! it just makes me sad at how weak my CPU actually is, it was one of the first gen x2 anyway, but still has 2 mb cache etc, but still doesnt perform like how a 2.6 should, but thats why i wanted to overclock it, but rather dont and sell it later to chip towards my new system, but im not buying anythin yet as i spend bout $140 i think, on my mobo, so gonna hang onto it till i cant play games anymore, then do a massive upgrade man

if you have corsair and his rig is still better than yours then you probably need to rma it. are you still in the warranty period?

That's cold, man! :laugh:

VulcanX, are you aware that, relative to the CPU and video card, your system's memory and motherboard have little impact on overall performance?

Also, this "dude"'s "E6450 or summin" is probably 2x as expensive as your 5200+. I would hope it would perform better.

Your 5200+ was NOT "one of the first gen x2" - socket AM2 is the 2nd generation platform of the K8 architecture. The 1st generation of X2 was for socket 939.

When you state, "i am an Intel fan through and through," you've basically destroyed any credibility you may have had. How can your advice be trusted when you've identified yourself in this way? Where were you a few years ago when AMD held the performance crown?

@ OP, are you looking to upgrade, or is your question for curiosity's sake?

 

[taltamir]

can i have some of what you are smoking?

What intel CPU is NOT better then then the 9500? actually.. most the X2 are ALSO better then the 9500 since most software is not quad core optimized yet. (meaning it will run faster on a faster X2 then on a phenom)

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: taltamir
can i have some of what you are smoking?

What intel CPU is NOT better then then the 9500? actually.. most the X2 are ALSO better then the 9500 since most software is not quad core optimized yet. (meaning it will run faster on a faster X2 then on a phenom)

single core celeron?

 

[Gikaseixas]

lies lies lies

@ Taltamir since when most of the X2 lineup is faster than the phenoms??? Everything is being designed with multiple threads in mind so more cores is better for the majority of things. Dual core still holds a slight advantage but it's something you also can see on the Intel camp, games being a good example.

@aigomorla, your E2200 is not a celeron and it's not better than a Phenom so what's your point?

I know very well how bad AMD is doing, i just bought a E8500 for my gaming and love it but for my everyday use i prefer the Phenom, it's just much smoother and very very responsive.

 

[aigomorla]

Originally posted by: Gikaseixas
@aigomorla, your E2200 is not a celeron and it's not better than a Phenom so what's your point?

he asked waht CPU was not better then a Phenom 9500.

I said a single core Celeron. How is this not true? Am i wrong in anything i said? I dont think a celeron is better then a phenom.

I dont think my E2200 is any better then phenom depending on application. <possibly on crysis since its clocked higher then any phenom could.> 3.5ghz

If your saying there isnt much processors that are better then AMD, then oh boy... your gonna need a lot of education here.

Originally posted by: Gikaseixas

I know very well how bad AMD is doing, i just bought a E8500 for my gaming and love it but for my everyday use i prefer the Phenom, it's just much smoother and very very responsive.

Sorry this is boarder line AMD fanboyism talking here. Okey i'll show you some overclocking fanism, one that isnt limited to brands:

Show me any AMD (even on XS) that has 24/7 Operational setting with Wprime scores close to this, and we can close this thread and say AMD is winner.
http://i125.photobucket.com/al...3/aigomorla/Wprime.jpg

No sorry phenoms ARENT faster, nor are they more smoother or very very repsonsive.
Compared to my QX the phenom is a Geo Metro while my QX is a Ford GT

Compared to kentsfield, Phenom loses seriously. The only reason to get a phenom in my book is because you want to play with spyder, or cuz you have an AM2 platform you want to recycle.

Even then a G0 Kentfield downvolted and overclocked would kiss that phenom goodbye in ANY bench you ran. Even power and heat benches.

This is why i returned my phenom. Yes i had one, but it was pointless when kentsfield platform is = price if you had to start from scratch.

 

[Cookie Monster]

O great i just canceled my long long post on why your wrong about saying that phenoms are not smoother or very responsive. Damn it!

A good post on why phenoms are theoretically smoother than C2Qs or C2Ds for that matter
Basically i was going to write about the same thing which abit more information. Spin locks and how these have a great influence on the synchronization of multi-threaded programs.

The above link clearly shows just how MCM quads are technically inferior to native quad designs when it comes to multi threaded programs and syncing of these threads using spin locks. Fact is, core 2 qauds are 2 core2duos communicating via FSB, and only shares 4MBs of L2 cache per 2 cores and not 4 i.e technically only has 4Mb of L2 cache.

Remember the argument "native design is better than the MCM method?" well this puts that to rest. Its only because conroe's were such a huge success in terms of performance that it eluded most people from the truth when comparing the phenoms to core2 quads. Benchmarks out today dont reflect real world multi-threaded applications and i,e doesn't try in showing how effective a quad core is when it comes to dealing with multi threaded programs but rather show its brute computational prowess instead.

Why do you think intel is moving on to native quad core design, IMC ala nehalem? because they know this better than most people know. That MCM designs are inferior to native designs. Synthetic benchmarks will never show this, and i find claims like "phenom goodbye in any benchmark you ran" pointless or downright uninformed because benchmarks have too their limitations in measuring CPU speed as explained in the link.

Maybe we should have a thread entirely on the discussions on this, and further inputs from people that have more indepth knowledge on multi-threaded programs and spinlock or synclock (w/e people know them by).

And Aigo you are being very childish here. Im quite surprised.

Note - Smoothness is different to Computational power. In context of games, one can produce an average of 30Fps with an average deviation of +/-5fps. The other produces an an average of 40 fps with an average deviation of +/-10fps. The former is smoother.